Consoles Are Holding Gaming Back

[mike1921]

And here is an example of how little graphics actually matter. Look at God of War 3 on PS3, then look at its PS2 predecessor God of War 2. The gameplay is essentially the same. The game experience is virtually identical. GoW3 looks slightly better because it was truly tweaked to use all of the PS3's power. But it adds so little to the game experience vs the previous that the overall fun factor and value is the same for either version. But 3 probably cost 4x more to make.

Sorry but god of war 3 looks more than slightly better than god of war 2. Like I could see ow somewhere between them you are hitting the point of diminishing returns....but those are still sizable returns.
I mean, look at it http://origin.playstationlifestyle.net/assets/uploads/2010/02/Cyclops-Eye-Rip-Comparison-.jpg
GoW2 was the better game but that's more because GoW3 just was like, dragged out as fuck because it was pretty much just the ending of God of War 2 with no real respectable reason to have an arc of it's own.

Yes GoW 3 looked better. Things were sharper clearer. Better sparkly effects. But the game itself was pretty close to exactly the same as GoW 2. Same gameplay. Same enjoyment. Same overall player experience. Were those slightly improved graphics worth the cost? Did they add so much to the end user experience That they made it worth needing at a minimum 3x the production staff to create?

This is the same shit we are seeing going on in Hollywood these days. The costs of producing these lush budget summer movies have grown beyond the revenue streams ability to reasonably recover them for little actual practical benefit to the end viewer. Look at those spectacular "knocking down buildings" sequences in Man of Steel. They cost 10's of millions. But how much did 40 continuous minutes of them bring to the movie? Did they not comunicate much the same experience for a much cheaper price way back in 1980?

For FPS fans, do you get more or the same level of enjoyment from an online matchup of the current version of CoD or from Team Fortress 2? Yes CoD "looks" much better. But does that really improve or add to the gameplay? And is that "looks better" worth the obscene costs and all of the negative effects that it piles on the industry? At what point do we finally walk away from that old paradigm of "better graphics always = better games"?

The way I see it is, if you have good reason to think you'll turn a profit you could put billions into graphics for all I care. My problem isn't overblown budgets per se it's overblown budgets that don't match the game's odds of success. GoW3 was a guaranteed blockbuster hit as was Avatar so the way I see it as long as they turn a profit they can spend the GDP of a country on special effects. My problem is when a game that isn't so guaranteed t do well, like Tomb Raider shouldn't have had a budget so high that 3.6 million sales at launch is seen as bad. I didn't see man of steel, but if they were impressive to the audience was it money wasted?

I honesty don't think CoD looks better, I think it looks boring. TF2 oozes charm out of every orifice. Looks are a big part of the experience though. A TF2 that looks like CoD would be a much different game. And I feel like a spec ops with say early-mid ps2 era graphics would probably be a worse game for it.

 

[Dragonbums]

Then...buy a new computer if it's that shit? I'm fairly certain you can get a decent gaming computer for $500 (xbone price, I think we could safetly say if you're comparing it PS4 you can save $100 easily off of steam sales and bundles and not paying $50-$60 a year to play games online).
In fact: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883113263
Fairly certain that's more than enough to last you for years and years.

I'm assuming by memory you mean storage: large amounts of storage isn't really that big of a deal anymore, external hard drives exist and as you can see that computer just gives you a terabyte. You could get a 1TB external for $100 if you really want and don't want to add another drive.

Why is the amount of processing power your art takes relevant? You're not gaming at the same time you're doing your art, are you? Like I guess if you demand you do them both at the same time that would maybe be an issue but....that seems pretty fucking weird to me.

yes, I know that if you want to play games you'll buy a console, I just think that's a horrible mentality and that PC's are infinitely superior for gaming and it just seems to be evidence of closed mindedness, "NO I USE THIS KIND OF DEVICE FOR THIS TASK, I DON'T CARE WHICH IS BETTER I WANT THE DEDICATED ONE".

You are completely missing the point.
I just told you that the day my computer dies on me is the day I will buy a new computer. This is the same mentality of a lot of computer users.
Most of them- me included will not waste the time and effort getting to know the ins and outs of a computer to build one. We will simply buy a console because it is easier. We put in the CD and it runs at very acceptable levels of graphics.
If PC was truly superior to gaming then it would've dominated by now. However it doesn't. And it doesn't look like it will anytime soon.
You never see big E3 conferences where anyone talks about gaming on the PC. Or talk about PC exclusives. It's all about the consoles and everyone knows it.
Saying that those who don't want to game on the PC are closeminded is a closeminded statement in itself.
It is a very valid reason for people to want a machine 100% dedicated to playing games. The refusal to see the benefits and reasons as to why someone would want to use a console to play games on as anything other than self centeredness is the reason why PC gamers have garnered such a negative reputation from everyone outside the gaming community.

Also do you understand that programs take up processing power when in use? The bigger the file is, the more energy my computer is putting into it to make sure it runs at optimal speed. Do I play games at the same time? No. However the space those games take up on my computer do not help with the load.
It's the reason why the head designer at Platinum Games says he doesn't like gaming on his PC. In fact, he doesn't game on his PC at all.
He does his work on the PC. Model files and modeling programs take up an enormous amount of space on computers, and he states that adding games to it will not make it any better.
It's clear the guy knows the ins and outs of computers, however people were quick to jump on his back and flame the shit out of him for saying anything even remotely a flaw in "PC Gaming Master Race"

Also $100 bucks for an external hard drive?
That $100 bucks can do a lot for people.
You say that like it's chump change. It's not.
I can buy a new tablet with that kind of money.
I can get a decent amount of groceries with money like that.
Do you think the average person with bills to pay, and taxes to file is just going to throw in $100.00 for an external hard drive like that?
Especially in this economy?

 

[dashiz94]

Seriously, this is why I can't stand PC gamers sometimes. Fuck graphics. As long as the game doesn't look like shit, I don't care if the arm hair is animated on a character. Consoles are there for people who don't want to deal with all the tech elements of PCs, and just want to plug in a game and fucking play. Worrying about graphics is stupid, I wish people would stop caring about them, fuck graphics.

 

[mike1921]

Then...buy a new computer if it's that shit? I'm fairly certain you can get a decent gaming computer for $500 (xbone price, I think we could safetly say if you're comparing it PS4 you can save $100 easily off of steam sales and bundles and not paying $50-$60 a year to play games online).
In fact: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883113263
Fairly certain that's more than enough to last you for years and years.

I'm assuming by memory you mean storage: large amounts of storage isn't really that big of a deal anymore, external hard drives exist and as you can see that computer just gives you a terabyte. You could get a 1TB external for $100 if you really want and don't want to add another drive.

Why is the amount of processing power your art takes relevant? You're not gaming at the same time you're doing your art, are you? Like I guess if you demand you do them both at the same time that would maybe be an issue but....that seems pretty fucking weird to me.

yes, I know that if you want to play games you'll buy a console, I just think that's a horrible mentality and that PC's are infinitely superior for gaming and it just seems to be evidence of closed mindedness, "NO I USE THIS KIND OF DEVICE FOR THIS TASK, I DON'T CARE WHICH IS BETTER I WANT THE DEDICATED ONE".

You are completely missing the point.
I just told you that the day my computer dies on me is the day I will buy a new computer. This is the same mentality of a lot of computer users.
Most of them- me included will not waste the time and effort getting to know the ins and outs of a computer to build one. We will simply buy a console because it is easier. We put in the CD and it runs at very acceptable levels of graphics.
If PC was truly superior to gaming then it would've dominated by now. However it doesn't. And it doesn't look like it will anytime soon.

People having a bad mentality is not the fault of PCs.

I just linked you to a computer that will be perfectly fine to run anything in the next 5 or so years, you're telling me you don't care enough about gaming to at the very least ask someone who does care to point you to one of those? Like, just buy it , I'm not saying to build it yourself, buy it and plug everything in. PC gaming community really shot themself in the foot by acting as if you can't use a prebuilt, like yes it'd probably be worth it to assemble it yourself but for the love of god there's no reason you should feel like you have to. And it's not exactly hard to have a basic grasp of what's good or bad, I can't tell you a thing about that graphics card, or really any of that hardware, I just have a very basic grasp of what number indicated a graphics card is recent, how much ram is good, and what processors are somewhat recent. l

You never see big E3 conferences where anyone talks about gaming on the PC. Or talk about PC exclusives. It's all about the consoles and everyone knows it.
Saying that those who don't want to game on the PC are closeminded is a closeminded statement in itself.
It is a very valid reason for people to want a machine 100% dedicated to playing games. The refusal to see the benefits and reasons as to why someone would want to use a console to play games on as anything other than self centeredness is the reason why PC gamers have garnered such a negative reputation from everyone outside the gaming community.

Demanding anything being dedicated without a reason the dedicated thing is better is close mindedness.But fine, be that way, every console also functions as a DVD player (or I assume the wii does), every console functions as a netflix box, every console functions as a storefront, now you can't play any games except arguably those on handhelds because you have some backwards notion that a dedicated system is inherently better. There's a reason everyone's moving to smart phones, and that's because having a dedicated piece of hardware for anything is becoming outdated outdated.

I refuse to see benefits that don't exist, the only benefits to consoles are exclusives and start up times (and even then I'm on somewhat old tech maybe start up times faster than console are reasonably possible).

Also do you understand that programs take up processing power when in use? The bigger the file is, the more energy my computer is putting into it to make sure it runs at optimal speed. Do I play games at the same time? No. However the space those games take up on my computer do not help with the load.
It's the reason why the head designer at Platinum Games says he doesn't like gaming on his PC. In fact, he doesn't game on his PC at all.

Wait, what the fuck are you talking about. Yes they take up processing power, WHEN IN USE, they shouldn't be in use while you're gaming.....The more energy your computer is putting in....ok? Space being taken up does not really effect the load times, I mean maybe if there's less than 15% left but in general that's not a problem for people. No idea how much space your digital art takes but...It seems to me like average computers come with 500gb now and I know most people don't use 40% let alone 85% of that.

He does his work on the PC. Model files and modeling programs take up an enormous amount of space on computers, and he states that adding games to it will not make it any better.
It's clear the guy knows the ins and outs of computers, however people were quick to jump on his back and flame the shit out of him for saying anything even remotely a flaw in "PC Gaming Master Race"

Or maybe because he's wrong? Or Could easily just get more storage?

Also $100 bucks for an external hard drive?
That $100 bucks can do a lot for people.
You say that like it's chump change. It's not.
I can buy a new tablet with that kind of money.
I can get a decent amount of groceries with money like that.
Do you think the average person with bills to pay, and taxes to file is just going to throw in $100.00 for an external hard drive like that?
Especially in this economy?

Dude, the thing came with a 1TB hard drive, I think the average person who can fill a 1TB hard drive can afford a 1TB external.

And, like I said, if you're a gamer, you'll save $100 off of other things easily because games are cheaper. Fuck, regardless of system if you play online: You pay that every two years. If you're living paycheck-to-paycheck and can't afford to look more long term with $100 I doubt you'll need an external. And if they will there's a good chance they'll need replacement hard drives for whatever console they're on anyway.

 

[Starik20X6]

"Necessity is the mother of invention"​

With that in mind, I'm a firm believer in the idea that restrictions are one of the main driving forces of creative greatness. When you've got limitations, you have to be creative and work around them to create something astonishing.

Remember when every character could only have 3 colours? When the AI was limited to walking around in random circles? Isn't it funny how those were some of the most creatively brilliant years of gaming's history? Now look at us- we've got the ability to create anything, we are limited only by our imaginations... And what do we make? Samey shooter after samey shooter after samey fucking shooter. And occasionally a samey fantasy game.

Look where most of the original creative ideas are now: the indie games, who, most of the time, don't have the limitless budgets and tech available to the big boys. So what happens? They improvise. They have to use what they have to create something great.

Consoles are holding gaming back in terms of open areas, AI, memory issues, not to much as graphics.

That is true also. Though I am not sure how many console games would have actually used open areas if it were possible. There aren't many open world games, but I don't think the console's power is directly responsible. Although it is still an issue.

One example is the PS3 on Skyrim - console limitations caused the infamous "save bloat" causing an unplayable game.

No, that's just poor design. Anybody who makes a game that doesn't function correctly on a console should be beaten and have their developer license taken away. Unlike a PC, which can have any number of different parts inside it, they know damn well exactly what's inside a console and what it's capable of. There no reason, none, ever, under any circumstances, that a game should stutter and slow down or indeed suffer from that 'save bloat' because the console is choking on the game itself. A bad workman blames his tools and all that.

 

[leviathanmisha]

And, let's face it, consoles are a better deal for most people, because you can wait a year or two, pick up a console for $250-$300, and still have the ability to play recent games.

I agree with this so hard. I had to wait to get a PS3 because finances and stuff since I was heading off to college.

But I have one now and I am planning on getting a PS4.

When it comes to PC's, I went through two laptops, both recently released when I bought them, and they both crapped out within a year, forcing my business to Apple and their products because I can't afford to replace my laptop every year. Repairing PC's can be just as expensive as buying them, because their warranties are flimsy as shit. Which is another reason I've always been more console than PC.

Also, if you are still playing the graphics card, just give up already. I think we would all go back to the 8-bit era if it meant that we actually got halfway decent games when it came to their stories.

 

[endtherapture]

One example is the PS3 on Skyrim - console limitations caused the infamous "save bloat" causing an unplayable game.

No, that's just poor design. Anybody who makes a game that doesn't function correctly on a console should be beaten and have their developer license taken away. Unlike a PC, which can have any number of different parts inside it, they know damn well exactly what's inside a console and what it's capable of. There no reason, none, ever, under any circumstances, that a game should stutter and slow down or indeed suffer from that 'save bloat' because the console is choking on the game itself. A bad workman blames his tools and all that.

Are you saying the design of the PS3 should've made Skyrim even less technically impressive? Because arguably the Xbox and PS3 already held back the game? Should they have removed even more features so it could work on the PS3?

 

[Anthony Corrigan]

Its obvious the answer to this is a no. reason consoles exist is because people buy them, there are various reasons for that, ease of setup, support that you get with a console (there is a 1300 number for Playstation if there is anything wrong with a game or the console, where was that for Diablo 3 when Blizzard were blaming NVIDIA, NVIDIA were blaming Microsoft and Microsoft was blaming Blizzard). More people means more money for games, more money means more things get made, so its quite obvious that the stability, price and whatnot of consoles benefits game development and that this whole thread is troll bait

 

[Wolf In A Bear Suit]

I really have no problem with my graphics on my Xbox 360. I don't feel like making them any better will seriously affect how much I enjoy a game, so no, not really.

 

[Starik20X6]

One example is the PS3 on Skyrim - console limitations caused the infamous "save bloat" causing an unplayable game.

No, that's just poor design. Anybody who makes a game that doesn't function correctly on a console should be beaten and have their developer license taken away. Unlike a PC, which can have any number of different parts inside it, they know damn well exactly what's inside a console and what it's capable of. There no reason, none, ever, under any circumstances, that a game should stutter and slow down or indeed suffer from that 'save bloat' because the console is choking on the game itself. A bad workman blames his tools and all that.

Are you saying the design of the PS3 should've made Skyrim even less technically impressive? Because arguably the Xbox and PS3 already held back the game? Should they have removed even more features so it could work on the PS3?

I'm not asking them to do anything other than provide a game that works, and I'm kind of worried because it seems that's too greater ask. Knowing they were going to release it on the PS3, 360 and PC, they should have made sure the game would function on all systems equally. Or, they could just not release it on the less powerful consoles. Or, they could have made console-specific versions, like they used to with the CoD games on the Wii. Bottom line, they should have made sure the damn game worked properly on the system running it. And this doesn't just go for Skyrim, it goes for any game that doesn't work correctly on a console.

 

[Dragonbums]

I just linked you to a computer that will be perfectly fine to run anything in the next 5 or so years, you're telling me you don't care enough about gaming to at the very least ask someone who does care to point you to one of those?

I can also buy a console that's dedicated to the next 5 or so years of gaming. Because that is the average span of a consoles life cycle in terms of games being made for it.

...How exactly is me choosing a console over a PC an indication that I don't care about videogames?

Demanding anything being dedicated without a reason the dedicated thing is better is close mindedness.But fine, be that way, every console also functions as a DVD player (or I assume the wii does), every console functions as a netflix box, every console functions as a storefront, now you can't play any games except arguably those on handhelds because you have some backwards notion that a dedicated system is inherently better. There's a reason everyone's moving to smart phones, and that's because having a dedicated piece of hardware for anything is becoming outdated outdated.

If I remember correctly, when I got my pS2, it's DVD player was complete and utter shit. If I also remember correctly, hardly anyone uses the internet features on consoles either. Those are just features more then anything. However most people use gaming consoles for games.
Look what happened to Microsoft with the Xbox One. People practically criticized it for putting everything else first before the games.
Heck the fact that one has to call their PC a gaming PC to emphasize that it specializes in playing games should be enough to know that just buying a regular old computer isn't enough.

I refuse to see benefits that don't exist, the only benefits to consoles are exclusives and start up times (and even then I'm on somewhat old tech maybe start up times faster than console are reasonably possible).

If you refuse to see and understand the other side of the argument, then how do you ever hope to convince your opposition to side with you? This isn't just isolated to PC vs. console. This applies to basically every discussion ever between two sides.

Wait, what the fuck are you talking about. Yes they take up processing power, WHEN IN USE, they shouldn't be in use while you're gaming.....The more energy your computer is putting in....ok? Space being taken up does not really effect the load times, I mean maybe if there's less than 15% left but in general that's not a problem for people. No idea how much space your digital art takes but...It seems to me like average computers come with 500gb now and I know most people don't use 40% let alone 85% of that.

Mines don't either, but it doesn't stop my Skyrim from having frame rate drops despite me having the game on the lowest possible settings.
It didn't stop my Mass Effect games from having certain characters have horribly pixelated textures.
It didn't stop my computer from reminding me that my video card is utter shit and I should probably buy a new one before playing Portal 2.
Hell, I have to watch out before I can Livestream and run a program at the same time.
60% of the time it's CPU goes through the roof.
In short, my laptop is OLD. However it still works. And as long as it still WORKS I have no desire to upgrade because as far as I'm concerned my computer isn't broken.

Or maybe because he's wrong? Or Could easily just get more storage?

He probably does buy more storage, and it goes right into filling even more stuff with work from his job. His computer is his workstation first and foremost.
Hence why he has a console because all of it can be focused on playing games.
I highly doubt a man who works on his desktop constantly doesn't know the ins and outs of his own computer. Unless 80% of the gamer fanbase regularly do intense videogame modeling and designing on a daily basis, I don't think we are in any position to tell a man who does this for a living that he's wrong or ignorant of any sort.

Dude, the thing came with a 1TB hard drive, I think the average person who can fill a 1TB hard drive can afford a 1TB external.
And, like I said, if you're a gamer, you'll save $100 off of other things easily because games are cheaper. Fuck, regardless of system if you play online: You pay that every two years. If you're living paycheck-to-paycheck and can't afford to look more long term with $100 I doubt you'll need an external. And if they will there's a good chance they'll need replacement hard drives for whatever console they're on anyway.

So when did becoming a gamer means that one has to put money to a PC?
How does me wanting to get a console as opposed to upgrading my computer/buying more space make me less of a gamer or cares less about videogames.
I am very patient with games anyway. Rarely am I a first time buyer on anything but trusted brands.
I care about games a lot.
The fact that your telling me I'm "less" of a gamer because I predominately use consoles is foolish and insulting.
I love the gameplay aspects of a game. Not the looks.
Because what are looks to me, if the game is utter garbage?
I came on the Escapist because like any gaming forum it is filled with people who share a similar hobby of playing games. How or where you play those games on is irrelevant.

 

[4RM3D]

Graphics DO cost that much. Really they do. The shear amount of digital art department man hours required to develop for a higher resolution, graphically superior game can be staggering...

There are different kind of graphic improvements. You could make everything in a higher resolution with hi-def graphics. Or you could add more special effect or more realistic effects.

When I was talking about graphics, I wasn't just talking about the resolutions, I was also talking about the effects. Making everything in (even) higher resolution will increase the costs a lot. But that doesn't mean there cannot be graphical improvement in other areas, like better water effects.

*snip*

@mike1921 already pointed out most of it, but I do want to mention two more things...

I just told you that the day my computer dies on me is the day I will buy a new computer. This is the same mentality of a lot of computer users.

"This is the same mentality of a lot of computer users." That is not entirely true. There is a shift from the common desktop and laptop computers to tables and other mobile devices. But these consumer do not wait until one thing breaks down. No, they just keep buying new stuff each year. Not all of them, but certainly a large part.

There isn't a new console each year, so you can't compare it with the console market. Although, if you look at the Nintendo DS's; a lot of people bought new ones, while the old one was still working.

Also $100 bucks for an external hard drive?
That $100 bucks can do a lot for people.

Do I need to remind you of the overly expensive Xbox HD? The one with limit space and 4 times the price tag. Also, you had to use the Xbox HD because other drives weren't supported by the Xbox.

EDIT:

I just told you that the day my computer dies on me is the day I will buy a new computer.

Also, while that is your choice, I would have bought a new computer sooner. Not because of the graphics, but because I don't want to take a coffee break every time a web page loads.

That reminds me: the PS3 menu navigation is freaking slllloooooooowwww. It's especially bad with the PS store. But that is sucky software design. The power of the PS3 should allow for faster navigation.

 

[endtherapture]

One example is the PS3 on Skyrim - console limitations caused the infamous "save bloat" causing an unplayable game.

No, that's just poor design. Anybody who makes a game that doesn't function correctly on a console should be beaten and have their developer license taken away. Unlike a PC, which can have any number of different parts inside it, they know damn well exactly what's inside a console and what it's capable of. There no reason, none, ever, under any circumstances, that a game should stutter and slow down or indeed suffer from that 'save bloat' because the console is choking on the game itself. A bad workman blames his tools and all that.

Are you saying the design of the PS3 should've made Skyrim even less technically impressive? Because arguably the Xbox and PS3 already held back the game? Should they have removed even more features so it could work on the PS3?

I'm not asking them to do anything other than provide a game that works, and I'm kind of worried because it seems that's too greater ask. Knowing they were going to release it on the PS3, 360 and PC, they should have made sure the game would function on all systems equally. Or, they could just not release it on the less powerful consoles. Or, they could have made console-specific versions, like they used to with the CoD games on the Wii. Bottom line, they should have made sure the damn game worked properly on the system running it. And this doesn't just go for Skyrim, it goes for any game that doesn't work correctly on a console.

I agree that if the game doesn't work, it shouldn't be released. It should've only been on PC and Xbox, but it's clearly an example of a way console hardcore limitations have killed development.

 

[Dragonbums]

Do I need to remind you of the overly expensive Xbox HD? The one with limit space and 4 times the price tag. Also, you had to use the Xbox HD because other drives weren't supported by the Xbox.

I personally do not even bother with Xbox. In fact I have never owned an Xbox console in my life, and I never planned to anytime soon.

 

[4RM3D]

Ah, catchy subject, no? While I do agree that consoles are holding gaming back. I am specifically referring to the graphics.

I got this far op if you think graphics makes a game worth playing and the only good games have amazing graphics I couldn't disagree with you more. I would go as far as to say "this generation has had the most boring stagnant tripe being shoved out the door with next to no new ideas because of all the sheeple that want to say WOW LOOK AT THOSE GRAPHICS.......".

Can I quote myself? OP's post:

I should note though that I don't think graphical improvements are absolutely necessary. It would be nice for the more realistic games. But for the more stylish games (aesthetic), it wouldn't be as much of an issue.

Translation: I am still fine with playing games with simple graphics, as long as the aesthetics hold up. I have had a lot of fun with Terraria and that was a game just a few pixels on the screen.

 

[DSK-]

I think that one of the few reasons gaming is being held back, if it is being held back at all, is due to the development processes; back in the old days games were limited by their graphics, hardware and controls, but that didn't mean playing on a ColecoVision was any less fun for people at the time. If anything, creativity was a necessity in order to make up for these shortcomings.

Truth be told, I have little to no idea about the likes of the NES, SNES, Megadrive and so on, or what games they had or the envelopes they pushed; but I do know about a good few revolutionary Amiga/PC games. Games then were still fun, imaginitive, and didn't lack originality in some way or another.

Now it's a case of pandering to the biggest denominator and making massive trilogies to milk said denominator. Then again, I can't say that the consumers are not at fault for this either.

 

[Arina Love]

Not really, considering that Persona 4 , best game ever made in my opinion, is far from graphically advanced and Crisys 3 that is very pretty but it was so boring i struggled to continue after 3 hours of game while i spent 70+ hours on Persona 4.

Even if consoles holding games back, i don't mind. As long as i don't have to deal with some of my games crushing all the time and not being able to do a thing, i will be a console gamer.

Buying games for my 1000$ PC is like lottery, you have pretty big chance that game you bought will not work at all, i gave PC gaming fair chance and it failed miserably. Microsoft DirectX TDR (Timeout Detection and Recovery) system suck.

 

[BarkBarker]

Hey, wanna know why some wii games look so fucking fantastic? Because they realise polygons aren't what make a game good, it's THE ART, what the hell am I gonna wanna do in a big open area if transport in wide area games is never fast enough unless it is a instant fast travel, I wanna soar the open fields, not run for 10 minutes, this is something devs. really need to address ¬_¬.